Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#41

Post by finnn » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:17 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #26

RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

I'm not opposed to NN, but your phrasing piqued my curiosity: Why is it bad that ISPs charge us based on type/source of data? Should grocery stores charge us by volume (mass?) of food instead of by type/source/etc? If aggregating costs is indeed more moral, why should it be enforced by law (as opposed to the food example)? Providing robust answers to these questions should strengthen the NN position.

Different types of food require different handling, etc. The grocery store is not a dumb pipe for food. It's a distributor. For products that dont require special handling (eg, refrigeration), a food shipping company is a more accurate analogy. They should not be charging by much other than volume/weight.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#42

Post by PhasmaFelis » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:17 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #17

waterphone wrote: post #2

They're also forcing all adult-oriented content on Tumblr (which isn't limited to porn, although porn makes up the majority of their userbase) behind a logged-in-users-only wall, blocking it from non-Tumblr users and in turn, external search engine results. https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/20/tumblr-rolls-out-new-conte...

Porn makes up the majority of Tumblr's userbase?

It's an image site on the internet that doesn't outright ban porn, so yes.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#43

Post by sausman » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:18 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #15

fiatjaf wrote: post #5

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using law and force.

There is no basis for your contention that "internet" would be cheaper without NN.

Facebook gives away Free Basics "internet". Although I'm not sure I'd call that internet...

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#44

Post by sbov » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:22 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #5

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using law and force.

Net Neutrality doesn't say ISPs can't charge customers for data usage. Which is what my answer would be: charge customers for data usage.

Some ISPs do this if you go beyond a certain amount per month. But if a tiny portion of users are hogging a massive amount of bandwidth (as is oftentimes claimed), it seems like an ISP could make a killing by offering cheaper bandwidth but charging for data usage, which would drive these high bandwidth users to other ISPs, which means you can provide your remaining users on average better bandwidth for a lower price.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#45

Post by jameskegel » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:23 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #23

RangerScience wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, at the least, can't you make it a deal that you're OK walking away from if you find yourself in this kind of situation?

Sure, you could sell the biz outright and wash your hands of the whole thing once the check clears.

I dream of that moment but can't help but feel I'd be doing something or someone wrong if I just disappeared to a small island somewhere expensive. Is it really possible to just disconnect after a sale? I'd be interested in hearing supporting anecdotes as well as to the contrary; I want to believe!

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#46

Post by PhasmaFelis » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:24 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #10

fiatjaf wrote: post #5

Net neutrality makes internet more expensive for everybody so Torrent and Netflix users can be subsidized. It looks right, but it is WRONG to "defend" it using law and force.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

> Finally, I just straight up don't understand what you mean by "defend it using... force". Can you explain?

It's a common refrain from some types of libertarians. The basic logic is that all laws are morally equivalent to holding a gun to someone's head, therefore it's immoral to pass laws regarding anything that's not worth killing over.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#47

Post by acjohnson55 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:24 PM UTC

sausman wrote: post #36

RangerScience wrote: post #11

If you're a founder and looking to sell your company, is there anything you can do to guard yourself against these kinds of situations? I imagine it might be some particular part of a golden handcuff / golden parachute deal, but making it work for everyone involved sounds super hard...

This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure fiduciary obligations don't entail that.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#48

Post by johncolanduoni » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:25 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #19

RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

Thank you for not downvoting me. Free market would be part of my answer if I had one. I'm not well-informed enough to say much, but imagine you have a local link in a small rural town that only support some absolute number of packets or whatever: if you have one big consumer that is eating the major part of that every day, making the others miserable, isn't it reasonable to limit that consumer's bandwidth somehow? Th…

But the person who makes the decision as to what ends up in the pipe (i.e. the end user, Netflix doesn't just spam people's routers) is the one who is already paying. Netflix isn't crowding anyone out (especially if they have a server within the ISP's perimeter), every bit of that bandwidth is requested by a user. Users crowding each other out is already handled by prioritizing based on how much they pay.

Mass of food is a false equivalence; cost of food per kg varies widely based on food, but cost of transmission of bulk traffic (the only kind ISPs are proposing to charge the entity on the other side of the connection for) is largely identical to the ISP. The cost may vary depending on where it comes from (network wise, not precisely geographically), but ISPs are already able to deal with that by having different sized links to other ISPs.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#49

Post by Buttons840 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:26 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #19

RangerScience wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…

Thank you for not downvoting me. Free market would be part of my answer if I had one. I'm not well-informed enough to say much, but imagine you have a local link in a small rural town that only support some absolute number of packets or whatever: if you have one big consumer that is eating the major part of that every day, making the others miserable, isn't it reasonable to limit that consumer's bandwidth somehow? Th…

ISP already can and do throttle based on volume, right?

At least one problem with charging by type is my ISP doesn't know what type of thing I'm consuming. I'm streaming Netflix over SSH, but they don't know this. Do I get the high or the low price?

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#50

Post by sillysaurus3 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 11:26 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #30

jnordwick wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvoted because we need more diversity of opinion here.

If we need diversity of opinion, perhaps you could up-vote someone that believes that the earth is flat or black is white. There are out there some readily determinable facts, and it is perfectly fine for all of our opinions to be the same as it concerns those facts. For example, almost everyone on earth will be of the opinion that fire is hotter than ice. Do we all suffer from group think? If someone believes that f…

Do you consider your position so weak that it can't withstand a debate?

I've phrased this bluntly for effect. If you say an idea is mistaken, then you've said the worst thing you can say about it. Censoring it only pushes inquisitive minds further into their camp.

If HN has become a place where mistaken ideas are no longer tolerated (in the sense that you can't lay out your reasoning without being attacked) then we've all lost something valuable.

I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet -- in this case, the downvotes were due to the flimsy nature of the comment -- but it's worth watching for.